The difference between airborne

and deposit simulations

By Larry Mastin, Hans Schwaiger, and
Mike Randall
USGS
 When setting up
runs

You may have noticed that

you can choose different run
types:
– Airborne Ash
– Ash Deposit
– Both Airborne and Deposit
The results
pages look Cloud
different

Deposit
Airport results
are different,

Deposit arrival Cloud arrival

. . . And the output files are different

Most files in the cloud folder are

not in the deposit folder . . . . . . And vice versa
• Why are there two run types?
• Can’t Ash3d simulate both in the same run?
 Yes, but

• The best settings for the two

run types are different
• In particular . . .
1. The model domain for a deposit simulation is
generally smaller

Deposit grid
Mount St. Helens eruption
15 km plume height, 8 hr duration
 . . . than for an ash-cloud simulation,
for the same input conditions

Cloud grid
Mount St. Helens eruption
15 km plume height, 8 hr duration
 2. Duration
• In Airborne runs, we
set a simulation
duration which
specifies how long to
track the cloud
• In deposit runs this is
not important--the run Not used for
deposit runs
continues until 99% of
ash is deposited
 3. Airborne simulations adjust the mass that
goes into the cloud

Example: Eyjafjallajökull, May 14, 2010

• This is because
distal clouds
contain only Satellite mass load Modeled load
about 1-10% of
the total mass Here, the cloud
erupted contained ~4% of
erupted mass

From: Devenish, B., P. N. Francis, B. T. Johnson, R. S. J. Sparks, and D. J. Thomson (2012),

Sensitivity analysis of dispersion modeling of volcanic ash from Eyjafjallajökull in May
2010, J. Geophys. Res., 117(D00U21), doi:10.1029/2011JD016782.
So, in airborne
simulations, Ash3d
adjusts the mass of the
cloud to be 5% of the
total erupted mass
 4. Grain sizes
• Cloud simulations use just one size (0.01mm,
negligible settling rate)
• Deposit simulations use 7 sizes:
Size (mm) Mass fraction Density
(kg/m3)
4 0.10 800
2 0.13 800
1 0.16 800
0.5 0.20 1000
0.25 0.20 1200
0.125 0.16 1800
0.0625 0.05 2000
• This deposit GSD is coarser
than many real ones, to
account for aggregation, or
clumping of fine ash
• It was derived by matching
model results with mapped Mapped deposit
deposits at Redoubt (Yellow lines)
volcano1
• We also reduced the # of
sizes, to minimize run time Model result
(blue)
• GSD is a BIG uncertainty in
model results; thus
• Ash3d deposit maps should
be regarded as approximate
representations 1
Mastin, L. G., H. Schwaiger, D. J. Schneider, K. L. Wallace, J. Schaefer, and
R. P. Denlinger (2013), Injection, transport, and deposition of tephra
during event 5 at Redoubt Volcano, 23 March, 2009, J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res., 259, 201-213,doi 10.1016/j.jvolgeores.2012.04.025.
 Also, Consider that
• Model settings are
optimized for speed
• Run time increases
with the number of
grain sizes
– <~5 min for cloud
simulations
– 10-15 min for deposit
simulations
 Because inputs are different,
we do not duplicate the output

• Duplicate files with different results

could cause confusion
• And misinterpretation
End